The Folk Prophet

This doesn't really work as an argument in the LDS world because of its lay-clergy. Everyone in the church, women included, may already teach, preach, prophesy, etc... So examples of women doing this in the Bible don't work toward an ordination ideology. Ordination, in the LDS church, is not requisite to preach. Now an example of a woman authoritatively baptizing someone...that might be used in said argument.

This approach for a church member who (theoretically) believes in a church that is led by God directly through revelation to it's leaders is ridiculously arrogant. Whereas it is more appropriate than public stances and protests, etc., it still doesn't quite fit the bill, IMO, of sustaining one's leaders and trusting that God does, actually, lead this church. There seems to be a common assumption by these liberal groups that the leaders of the church are unthinking bigots who have never even bothered to ask God what His will is in such matters. Once again, I repeat...ridiculously arrogant. The very presumption is rooted in arrogance. The fact of the matter is that those not leading the church do NOT know better than those whom God has called to lead it. I mean, seriously..."Dear God, please help the prophet to be as wise and forward thinking as I am, and help him to see the obvious truth that I see, because he is clearly blind where I can clearly." Really?

The prayer standard is not a sociological standard, it is a personal one. Whether everyone else in the world claims they have received a revelation that their way/church is true or not is irrelevant. It is a personal promise to each of us from the Lord that if we sincerely and humbly seek Him, He will guide us to the truth. I doesn't matter how many people claim this to be true. It only matters what we find to be true when we act upon this promise. The church does not claim to be true because the members have acted upon this promise. The church claims to be true because it is true, but the evidence for the truth is individual. It is not an en masse case of, "we all got revelations so that proves the church is true". My revelation that the church is true does nothing for my neighbor. They must gain this knowledge from God themselves in order to know. There is no such thing as sound reasoning by fallible (and often idiotic) mortal beings. We simply do not have all the information. How can we make reasonable conclusions without all the information? We can't. God, however, has all the information. Relying upon the "prayer standard" as you call it, is the only reasonable course.

I don't really see the difference. But that's my take. Call the church a liar or call Joseph arrogant...it's all excuses to walk or turn away from the real objective of the church and Joseph, which point is to bring people closer to Jesus. And there is a specificity to HOW this is to be done, and it is not, nor has it ever been evidence. The clear message of both Joseph and the Church on the issues is the same. Ask God if the church is true. Everything else is a distractor. Based on the current trend of publishing essays, I wouldn't put it past the church doing just so in the near future. It will be interesting if they do. However, in my experience, this doesn't seem to be one of the major detractors for people. I could be mistaken on that. But I'd say the things addressed are MUCH bigger issues for people. Polygamy. Blacks and the priesthood. And, thanks to the popularity of the South Park clods, the own-your-own-planet thing (which, actually, was only a side note in the issue being addressed--the belief that one can become like God).

I think these sorts of concerns are exactly why the church moves slowly with technology. And you may be right on the auto bill pay thing. But that's an easy enough thing to simply not include in the software dev that takes the payments. :) Time will tell.

I don't agree with that necessarily. I mean, I see your point, but if you make a very steady income I don't see anything wrong with autopay. Besides, say someone made 60k a year. 5k a month. They set up an autopay of $500 to tithing monthly. You really think they're going to be blissfully unaware of the fact that a very nice truck payment amount is leaving their bank account each month? Tithing is a sacrifice, regardless of whether you write out the check by hand or not. Moreover, I think that within 5-10 years electronic tithe paying will be the norm. The church is and always has been a bit behind the times technology-wise. Carbon copy receipts is a thing of the past. The church will catch up.

Looking beyond the mark, as they call it, is a real issue, and becomes a true problem with some people. Beyond the good advice given by others, I can only add this thought. You cannot make others change. You can only change yourself. Start there. No more screaming, etc., all that other stuff that you admit yourself guilty of too. Fix that first. You may be surprised at how much changes when you start with yourself.

Actually, the priesthood was limited before. From the time of Adam all worthy males had the right to the priesthood. It was only limited (as in the lower Mosaic law) because of the wickedness of men. Both genders already do, as noted by JaG. But they do not, (nor will they ever, I believe) have the same rights within the priesthood. The priesthood "power" is actually a right. It's not just simply the power of God. The power of God is exercised through faith, and women exercise faith to power all the time. Technically, all of God's power is the priesthood, so in that regard one might argue the women do exercise priesthood power. But that's a misdirect and not really what the point of the priesthood is. The priesthood is an order. An organization, if you will. It is the order of God, specifically, the order of the Son of God. Joining in the order gives one specific rights to do and have specific things. It also demands action on our part. (Hence, the Oath and the Covenant of the Priesthood). Part of those rights are things like baptizing and blessing the sacrament. Part of those rights are sealings and the like. One of the distinct and most important rights of the priesthood is the right to eternal life. That priesthood right is undeniably promised to faithful women as well as men.

Agency is the right to choose salvation or damnation. It is not the right to do whatever you want without consequence. In fact it is quite the opposite of that.

And women pass the sacrament too, ultimately. My wife hands it to me every week. That doesn't mean she holds the priesthood. The priesthood is the order of the Son of God, and both men and women join in that order. That is clear. But they join the order in different ways, and have distinct and different responsibilities within that order. The rights of the priesthood are assigned and are eternally linked to men--and to women. They are not uniquely men's. But those rights that are uniquely men's are uniquely men's.

It's not that simple. And, frankly, Joseph Smith and a pride issue would be just as much a stumbling block to people as the church supposedly denying quotes. You hear this sort of thing oft times in the anti circles. "If the church would just fess up it would be better." Nonsense. It would not be better. The haters would still hate. The apostates would still apostatize. The unbelievers would still not believe. Regardless, the church upholds this particular position (that Joseph didn't actually imply that he was greater than Jesus) because it speaks to Joseph's understanding of our Lord and Savior, to whom Joseph spoke with directly on several occasions. There is no way Joseph misunderstood the God he worshiped. It is entirely implausible with what the church holds Joseph Smith to have been. Moreover it would directly conflict with other teachings that Joseph gave, in point of fact, his whole theology.

I don't know that I agree. If the priesthood is eternal to men and childbearing is eternal to women, and gender is eternal, then it would not make sense that God could reassign such things. The priesthood is not just some willy-nilly assignment. It is eternally linked to patriarchy. edit: I might add from the Benson quote a bold to the "...but within certain bounds..."

I think it's even more complicated than that. I think it's a bigger issue than "would" or "should", but actually falls into the "could" category. The priesthood is eternal. I do not believe God can change His order any more than He can lie. Which is to say, He could lie, but He would cease to be God. And if He changed His eternal order, the same. The order of God is perfect because God is perfect and if God ceased to have a perfect order, He would cease to be perfect, and thereby cease to be God. The idea that women can be ordained is based on the concept that giving the priesthood to men was cultural and nothing more. I say garbage. There is significant evidence that is it more than that. It is an eternal order of the patriarchy--rights passed from Father to Son. Moreover, Women already enjoy the rights of the priesthood, and join the patriarchal order through marriage. They simply do not officiate in the ordinances of the priesthood (with a few exceptions where propriety and/or necessity demand). So I agree that Christ would not and should not change His church to conform to the demands of the world, but I would add the query, could He?

They already do make that argument, though perhaps not as in depth as is possible. I am curious what understanding of the scriptures led your church to that, incidentally. LDS scripture, however, is a bit harder nut to crack when it comes to support for ordaining women, as there are stronger indications of the patriarchal nature of it in some of the other books beyond the Bible that we consider scripture. However, in reality, the scriptural debate is a non-starter in the LDS world, as we are firmly entrenched in the continuing revelation camp, and believe that scriptures are to be interpreted by the revelation received by those authorized and set apart to receive such (meaning prophets and apostles). Therefore, no amount of scriptural 'proof' will hold sway. Revelation from God is required for change.

Personally, I think that assuming the thoughts of the Ordain Women's group is a mistake. First, we just don't know if, as a group, their intent is naive or malicious... Secondly, how can we apply individual motives to a group and vice versa? It's entirely possible that some of them do want to shame GAs and some do not. It's entirely possible that some are conniving, some are just stupid, etc.., etc...

This is true. It requires great humility, faith, and intent.

I'm not sure why you'd need to go to the Stake President unless the bishop is actually threatening some sort of action against you. The fact that he's asking things he should not is a simple matter to handle. Answer the questions that you don't mind answering and are appropriate or merely inquisitive. On the inappropriate questions, tell him it's none of his business. Unless he threatens to take away your temple recommend or something else like that there's no reason to escalate it, imo.

Here's Neil L. Andersen on doctrine:

I can accept that. I don't think how one defines doctrine is an apostolic/prophetic proclamation that is binding on the church. I think the way Elder Packer used the term doctrine does, actually, make things problematic without a bit of clarification. If we accept the idea that doctrine = eternal truths and ONLY eternal truths then doctrine does not change. I have no problem with that. But then we have other apostles saying that blacks will never have the priesthood and that it is doctrinal. So there's your inconsistency, because we know that changed. So either it wasn't doctrine (a concept I reject) or doctrine changes and Elder Packer is using an idea of doctrine that is not consistent with what other apostles have said. It doesn't, ultimately, matter. But one of the apostle got it wrong. And, regardless, it does not change what the current teaching of the church is on what constitutes doctrine: as in, what is currently commonly taught, easy to find, etc., etc... Boldness aside, you're misinterpreting what I said. "The application of doctrinal principles" is the same as "the information in the handbooks does constitute church doctrine."

You misunderstand my meaning in that thread. Truth does matter. Truth is ALL that matters. And doctrine matters. By my saying "who cares..." I did not mean to imply that it doesn't matter what we believe. I meant to say who cares if we call it doctrine or not. People get so hung up on what's considered "doctrine" instead of worrying about trusting the Lord, His plan, His church, and His anointed ones' counsel.

Logically, yes, it could change. But not because of preference. The Lord's doctrine is the Lord's and He will do as He will. Our preference is meaningless. Our whole goal should be to bend our will and understanding to His. Also, as I also said in the doctrine thread, eternal truth does not change. Not at all. There is no difference. Trying to say there is a difference confuses things that are plain. What, exactly, does "preside" mean if it doesn't mean "preside". The prophet presides over the church. Who has final say there? The bishop presides over the ward. Who has final say there? pre·side[ pri zī́d ] 1 be officially in charge: to be the chairperson or hold a similar position of authority at a formal gathering of people 2 have control: to be the most powerful person or the one everyone else obeys, usually in a specific place or situation 3 perform as instrumentalist: to be the featured instrumentalist in a musical performance How can one preside if one doesn't actually preside? The concept is mystifying at best. The husband and wives are equal because the Priesthood is never, can never be, enforced. The powers of the priesthood may only be exercised through the means dictated in D&C 121. The righteous husband and righteous wife will be equal partners because they will both pursue righteousness. The unrighteous husband loses his right to preside. The unrighteous wife will not follow the righteous husband anyway, and the righteous husband will never exercise unrighteous dominion. But the husband does preside, and then the righteous wife should follow his counsel. That is doctrinal whether people have a problem with it or not. Well, you may bow out if you wish. But I'm not sure wherein we should be accepting definitions for words that don't mean what the words actually mean. The meaning words have actually does matter, and using words in ways that they don't mean causes a breakdown in communication. Clarification of what a word means is meant to help communication. But if some choose to ignore the meanings and press forward belligerently, that's their prerogative. However, I am not defining these words. They are already defined. Hence the dictionary definition posts. If you find discussion based on the actual meaning of words like teaching a rock to do arithmetic then you're probably right, we won't go far in useful conversation. Regardless, the doctrine thread and this one are two different points. My post in the doctrine thread is, very clearly, my point of view on it. But the points I'm trying to make in this thread (while, obviously, still my point of view, as anyone's points are) are based on scripture and doctrine. My so-called "defining" of patriarch is not really the point though. The patriarchal order, what it means, how it's established doctrinally, scripturally, and in LDS theologically, are concrete principles and it has nothing to do with defining the actual word. It has to do with the way we interact in the church, the priesthood, and in our own homes. There is effort to alter these things, and it is to our detriment to do so. The Lord's order is His, not ours to do with as we prefer. Your overall response seems to have turned fairly antagonistic. So I think, for that reason, I too will bow out of further responses if the tone remains the same. I'm not interested in antagonism. I'm more than happy to discuss the philosophy and even challenge each other's thinking. I'm not interested in moving into territory that intentionally, directly insults one another.

It is asymmetrical because it is meant to be. Preference to altering the order of God has no meaning. The meaning is intentional and tied to the patriarchal order. It is important, doctrinal, scriptural, and it matters. We are taught to go to the temple to gain new insight, not prefer wording that suits our own politically correct preferences. Actually, I was talking about why only men will have the priesthood and the viewpoint that women could have it someday is nonsense. I was also talking about it in terms of the temple wording, in that she said she'd like it to be less patriarchal. I reject that as a viable philosophy. The patriarchal wording has meaning and intent and is not just based on chauvinistic archaic philosophies that needs updating to modern sensibilities.

More scriptural support of "patriarchal" priesthood:

Which part of a covenant to obey the Lord leaves a husband unaccountable to his wife? Changing the wording, as you have implied, would make things less patriarchal. That would be a denial of truth. The church is patriarchal. The gospel is patriarchal. The priesthood is patriarchal. And the patriarchal order is scriptural, eternal truth. The Priesthood is not optional for men. Not at all. Ordination to the Priesthood is a saving ordinance. Then you misunderstand the nature of the Priesthood and the patriarchal order, which is synonymous with it. A woman cannot be a patriarch any more than a man can be a matriarch.

I don't usually disagree with you, but I do on this one. The church clearly teaches family, job, then callings. However, to flip on my own opinion, anyone who is unwilling to give up family, home, jobs, etc., for the Lord is unworthy of salvation. But this would apply to women too and has nothing to do with the Priesthood.